The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, August 23, 2018.
Should every
move to change status quo be scoffed at? What is lost is the fact that there
has been no move to amend any substantive provision of the RTI Act. But
consultations should have been held before making the changes.
A recent
proposal by the government to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI
Act) in order to alter salaries, allowances, terms and conditions of service of
the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at
the central and state levels, has met with opposition.
The
criticisms from RTI activists, political opponents, the distinguished first CIC
(The Tribune, July 31, 2018) and others have mainly been on three counts: that
there have been no pre-legislative consultations on this issue, that the presumed
reduction in the rank and salary of the CIC and ICs would undermine the
institutional status of the commissions and, that perceived government control
would lead to vitiation of the Act.
To analyse
the government move and the adverse reaction it has generated in certain
circles, a fact check may be necessary. At the central level, there is one CIC
and upto 10 ICs - all 11 with service conditions, salary and allowances similar
to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners of India
- and by extension to those of Supreme Court judges. Besides, the 29 state CICs
get the same privileges - ICs of the states enjoying the rank of a Chief
Secretary of the state. Thus, over three dozen members of the Information
Commissions broadly enjoy the salary, rank and privileges of three in the
Election Commission (CEC and two ECs) and about thirty-one of the Supreme
Court. All in the name of transparency.
It has also
been questioned “if the Election Commission, which enforces a right under
Article 324(1) is a constitutional institution, how can the Information
Commission, which enforces a fundamental right, under Article 19(1)(a) be a
non-constitutional body”. This is in response to the government’s thinking that
a difference be made between a constitutional body (Election Commission) and a
statutory body (Information Commission) so that the rank and service conditions
of the Information Commission can be rationalised. This appears to be a
specious question couched in legalese. If the people of India think that
Information Commissions should become constitutional bodies, the proper course
would be to agitate for a constitutional amendment. Similarly, one can fight
for the RTI to be declared a fundamental right. Till then a rational
differentiation ought to be made.
In this
context, another issue requires to be raised. Over the decades, there has been
a tendency to create posts higher than the level of secretaries to Government
of India (GoI) and chief secretaries in the states. Either to induct talent,
not available in the higher bureaucracy, or to reward people for “their
services”, numerous posts have been created not infrequently for their loyalty
and very often after their retirement – at the level of ministers of state [a
few even at the level of cabinet minister], election commissioners or judges of
Supreme Court. None seems to have questioned that such decisions, in a sense,
undermine the positions of serving members of the higher bureaucracy and the
higher judiciary.
As long as
governments continue with the practice of appointing people post-retirement,
sometime allegedly to pay back their debt, this problem will persist. But
shouldn’t at least some attempt be made to rationalise this process, reversing
the distortionary trend? Should every move to change status quo be scoffed at?
Shouldn’t such bodies, often quasi-judicial in nature, be drastically reduced
in number? Importantly, why should anybody, other than an elected minister or a
judge of the highest court of the land, be bestowed with a rank, salary
allowances higher than those of a secretary to the GoI (or of a High Court
judge)?Do any of them perform anything more important? Or is it that the salary
or rank of a secretary or High Court judge not high enough?
What is lost
in the chorus of criticism is the fact that there has been no move whatsoever
to amend any substantive provision of the RTI Act. Even then there are protests
from certain public intellectuals as if the fabric of the legislation is being
compromised. Admittedly, in statutory bodies, the appointments are to be fair,
the tenure of office should be fixed and the process of removal difficult, as
stipulated in Section 14 of the Act- so as to insulate such members from
executive interference and whims. For this purpose alone, it is desirable that
there should be consultations before the amendments are made, even if these
relate only to service conditions.
Even for
UPSC, the venerated constitutional body, as also for other statutory
institutions like the Central Administrative Tribunals, etc., the service
conditions have been changed with members having been given the rank of
secretaries to GoI. This has not increased government control over such bodies,
nor reduced their institutional importance. Similar are the provisions for members
in the draft Bills to set up the National Medical Commission and the Higher
Education Commission of India. This, to any independent observer, would appear
fair and rational.
History
teaches us that the respect and authority that democratic institutions enjoy
depend largely on the quality, character and performance of people at their
helm, not so much on their official salary and rank. Even a district collector,
a commissioner of police, a chief engineer, an army colonel and the like can
leave an imprint on their respective fields and be remembered by posterity.
Being selected as a chief or a member of the Information Commission is an
opportunity to serve a major cause, especially because RTI Act is used mostly
by the common, poor people of the land having no other access to high public
offices. Fight for preservation of rank, salary and perquisites, even if
projected under the garb of public interest, does not perhaps advance that
cause.
.JPG)
.JPG)
